![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello Gwen. I can stand the heat, which is why I'm in the kitchen. Please remove your block of this person (a block of which I hadn't been aware when I restored and responded). Really, this is pretty mild stuff; he's only identified me as a different species of primate, not a body organ or evacuated product thereof. -- Hoary ( talk) 05:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
i have always made useful contributions only. u may go through rajesh khanna history page each and every line has been put by me only... my personal attack has been only after her act of tarnishing my image by writing everywhere unexplained and unconstructive edits by me when the fact was i spoke truth in the articles with references as a support. . my attack was only a reaction to all her atrocities on me. just because she is a administrator , that doesnt mean what she is says is right. be true to yourself. eg...genaic had reverted in rajesh khanna main article ...to """"He appeared in many romances and social melodramas, costarring with Sharmila Tagore, Asha Parekh, Mumtaz, Hema Malini and Tina Munim. In the 1980s, he costarred with Shabana Azmi, Smita Patil and Poonam Dhillon""""" and quicklight have explained how there is no copyright problem or violation of wiki policy ... see the discussion between good editors like Moonriddengirl,.Quicklight and bonadea ...it says there is no problem in writing the sentence as .."He formed popular onscreen pairs with with Sharmila Tagore, Asha Parekh, Mumtaz in the seventies and with Hema Malini, Tina Munim, Shabana Azmi, Smita Patil and Poonam Dhillon in eighties in many romances and social melodramas and films from a range of different genres""
but genaic has not bothered to revert it.
plus see this """u still have not responded to her completely baised act in artciles like -- bewafai,insaaf main karoonga and sitapur ki geeta. i showed you how in-spite of being well referenced she removed the informations i posted. like http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sitapur_Ki_Geeta&diff=cur&oldid=398008379""""
do not worry, iam not afraid to speak truth . Shrik88music ( talk) 14:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
"Three Saturn V vehicles launched on Earth orbital flights. Two of the three ( Apollo 4 and 6) were unmanned tests of the command and service modules, and the third was a manned flight, Apollo 9, testing the lunar module. Nine Saturn Vs launched manned Apollo missions to the Moon, including Apollo 11. It was also used for the unmanned launch of Skylab. "
Check the source. It mentions nothing about freshwater lenses (or Ghyben-Herzberg lens) or anything that might be specifically defined as such. It simply states: "no natural fresh water resources" under the Environment section. Other sections omit mention of water resources. Perhaps a word used in common English could be used to replace lens, if you feel that it should remain. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 18:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Nsaum75/Lens_(hydrology) - Would you be interested in helping me expand it before I move it to the mainspace? -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 18:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I have now opend the ANI (though I am wonderinjg if an RFC is more apporpriate3). Slatersteven ( talk)
i have always made useful contributions only. u may go through rajesh khanna history page each and every line has been put by me only... my personal attack has been only after her act of tarnishing my image by writing everywhere unexplained and unconstructive edits by me when the fact was i spoke truth in the articles with references as a support. . my attack was only a reaction to all her atrocities on me. just because she is a administrator , that doesnt mean what she is says is right. be true to yourself. eg...genaic had reverted in rajesh khanna main article ...to """"He appeared in many romances and social melodramas, costarring with Sharmila Tagore, Asha Parekh, Mumtaz, Hema Malini and Tina Munim. In the 1980s, he costarred with Shabana Azmi, Smita Patil and Poonam Dhillon""""" and quicklight have explained how there is no copyright problem or violation of wiki policy ... see the discussion between good editors like Moonriddengirl,.Quicklight and bonadea ...it says there is no problem in writing the sentence as .."He formed popular onscreen pairs with with Sharmila Tagore, Asha Parekh, Mumtaz in the seventies and with Hema Malini, Tina Munim, Shabana Azmi, Smita Patil and Poonam Dhillon in eighties in many romances and social melodramas and films from a range of different genres""
but genaic has not bothered to revert it.
plus see this """u still have not responded to her completely baised act in artciles like -- bewafai,insaaf main karoonga and sitapur ki geeta. i showed you how in-spite of being well referenced she removed the informations i posted. like http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sitapur_Ki_Geeta&diff=cur&oldid=398008379""""
do not worry, iam not afraid to speak truth . Shrik88music ( talk) 19:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
That 88.104 vandal's range and the photo posted are consistent with the M.O. of the banned user "Light current". Earlier this year, a broad-ranging and fairly lengthy range block was imposed. It might be getting to be time to do that again. Please consult user "Ten of all trades" for more details, as he's kept closer watch on LC than I have. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
GG, I'run into an IP user who is adding copyvio material to the Cabinet Secretary (India) Article. The source is http://cabsec.nic.in/rti_powerduties.php . Copyvio parts include this "gem":
Not all af the article is a copyvio (yet!), so I'm unclear how to tag it. Can you advise? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 12:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
{{subst:copyvio | url=insert URL here}}
tag straight off. See
WP:Copyvio for more.
Gwen Gale (
talk)
12:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Many thanks! - BilCat ( talk) 12:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Jonathan? LessHeard vanU ( talk) 14:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I have just posted a section by this name about you at ANI. Wm5200 ( talk) 17:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
mostly copy pasted thread from an article talk page |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Gwen, I'm asking you this question mainly because of your frequent participation at this article and its talk page. Would you consider material presented from this source acceptable and helpful if used in a proper context? Thanks. Dr. Dan ( talk) 01:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I lost you, but I’m confused myself. It appears as though the person with the least information available is most influential on the article. The U.S. is big on free press, and it works. My very low budget suburb is in a system which serves 225,000 people with 4 MILLION titles (numbers approximate, thanks Carol). That’s on the next shuttle van. Most of the rest of the assets of a state with 12 million people are a couple of days away by mail. The specialty stuff on AE from Radcliffe took maybe a week. And I am an amateur. Dan, you are over three million people higher in the food chain, you must be “world class”. Kierzek has clearly read and analyzed everything, reviewed most of it, and as far as I can tell, every word he says is accurate and informed. Kershaw, Joachimsthaler, Thomas, Trevor-Roper, Beevor, Shirer, Ryan, Toland, Eberle/Uhl, Lehmann/Carroll, O’Donnell, Victor, Petrova/Watson. (Vinogradov hit a snag, reordered). These are books which I have had in my possession and read parts of since Aug 2010. I can understand if others do not have access to the same resources, but I think that should be addressed. If someone does not have access to two footnotes which are critical in a discussion, that also should be addressed. I think maybe that “using information that they have read and can understand” means that if you only read and have access to the “Sun”, that is all you should use as a source. But I think you should get them right. And I don’t think that you should dispute or ignore works beyond the "Sun", they are outside your understanding. I know that this is P.O.V., and that I am personally involved. But I can not help but believe that this article has problems with it’s process. Wm5200 ( talk) 18:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC) |
lots of text copy pasted from this closed thread |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
On 01:27, 5 August 2010 I posted a section on "Talk: Death of Adolf Hitler" titled “Random Questions” which started “I am not a scholar, I read Wiki but would not think of editing it. But I was disappointed in this article, and many points in the discussion, so I am asking some questions. Perhaps someone else will read and address them.” The section went on with several rethoritical questions, and ended with “As to sources, the last books I have read are The Murder of Adolph Hitler by Hugh Thomas (sort of shaky) and The Last Days of Hitler by Anton Joachimsthaler (English translation, I buy much of this).” Gwen Gale was apparently assigned me as an administrator, because at 09:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC) she replied with: ”As the article lead says,...This said, this talk page isn't a forum for talking about personal views or questions on a topic, it's meant for talking about sources and how to echo them in the text. I say this because the article seems to already cover, with thorough citations, most if not all of what you've brought up...dodgy. Gwen Gale (talk)” By this reply it appears that Gwen Gale is NOT FAMILIAR with the work of Joachimsthaler, who I have just referenced, and thinks that I am asking a personal question, not a rhetorical one. At that time I apologized, tried to explain myself, and restate my questions. At 17:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC) I posted” If I had read Kershaw's Nemesis Chapter 17 note 156 and Epilogue note 1 I wouldn't have wasted your time. You can't get much clearer than that. Should be required reading. Perhaps someone else should read them, and possibly edit the article. Thank you for your time.99.41.251.5 (talk)” At 16:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC) I posted “I would like to direct people to the work of Ian Kershaw Hitler, 1939-1945: Nemesis ISBN 0393322521. Chapter 17 and the epilogue relate to this article. Please pay attention to his notes and sources. Be warned, his book Hitler: a Biography is a kind of digest which does not include these resources....The source Joachimsthaler is basically an English translation of a German's analysis of 1950's post-Soviet interviews of bunker survivors. The original transcripts must be available somewhere. There are many other bunker interviews, some with questionable intent, and not all agree. Wm5200 (talk)“ Since those posts I have posted a huge amount on the talk page, virtually all of which Gwen Gale has disputed. Much of the material I have posted I have later deleted, often because I felt that the endless conflict between Gwen Gale and myself is counterproductive to the article. Anyone who is Wiki can probably bring back any of those posts. Was I sometimes rude and argumentative? Absolutely. Was I making legitimate points which related to the article? I thought so. Did I receive effective support and encouragement by my administrator? I think not, but you judge. My main point was that Joachimsthaler had reviewed the information, and had made a solid case for positions which Kershaw backed. I repeatedly begged anyone, especially Gwen Gale, to read Joachimsthaler and Kershaw, specifically, two footnotes, I even told the pages of the footnotes. Gwen Gale clearly had not read either source. 18:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC) I posted, under the heading “Question for Gwen Gale” , the following: ”I lost you, but I’m confused myself. It appears as though the person with the least information available is most influential on the article. The U.S. is big on free press, and it works. My very low budget suburb is in a system which serves 225,000 people with 4 MILLION titles (numbers approximate, thanks Carol). That’s on the next shuttle van. Most of the rest of the assets of a state with 12 million people are a couple of days away by mail. The specialty stuff on AE from Radcliffe took maybe a week. And I am an amateur. Dan, you are over three million people higher in the food chain, you must be “world class”. Kierzek has clearly read and analyzed everything, reviewed most of it, and as far as I can tell, every word he says is accurate and informed. Kershaw, Joachimsthaler, Thomas, Trevor-Roper, Beevor, Shirer, Ryan, Toland, Eberle/Uhl, Lehmann/Carroll, O’Donnell, Victor, Petrova/Watson. (Vinogradov hit a snag, reordered). These are books which I have had in my possession and read parts of since Aug 2010. I can understand if others do not have access to the same resources, but I think that should be addressed. If someone does not have access to two footnotes which are critical in a discussion, that also should be addressed...I know that this is P.O.V., and that I am personally involved. But I can not help but believe that this article has problems with it’s process.Wm5200 (talk)'" On 22:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Gwen Gale posted “For starters, the Russian autopsy bore overwhelming evidence he not only shot himself, but bit down on a cyanide capsule. Gwen Gale (talk)”. By this post it is clear to anyone familiar with either Joachimsthaler or Kershaw that Gwen Gale is still not familiar with either work. At 02:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I posted, under the title “Gwen Gale’s sources”, the following: “I think the rest of us in this discussion would benefit from knowing what Gwen Gale is using as sources, which sources that are on the article and the rest of us are familiar with is she NOT familiar with, which sources she has access to, and when she last familiarized herself with the ones which she is currently using. It appears that we are talking about a person who is "informationally challenged" relative the others in this discussion. Perhaps some arrangement might be made so she has a level of knowledge that could make her be an asset. I have both Kershaw Nemisis and Fest Hitler which I will donate, if it will bring her up to speed so this article is not impeded any more.(User:Wm5200)” At 04:59, 12 November 2010 Kierzek deleted my post “per Wiki talk page guidelines”. Okay, how do I address this continued refusal to read the source material? I have offered to mail Kershaw half way around the world so that Gwen Gale can read two crummy footnotes. But my offer is not only not taken up, but is apparently not in good faith, and even “snarky”. What can I do to get my administrator to read the source material? I would like to bring up two Wiki terms which I do not understand. It appears that Gwen Gale and I have a different “P.O.V.” about the usage of these terms. Assume Good Faith. I first thought that Gwen Gale would be a good administrator, after what I have been through, would YOU assume she is acting in good faith? Original Research. I have never been to Berlin, read any original documents, or talked to any eyewitness. The ONLY information I have about the subject is what I have read in published works. How is it that Gwen Gale finds so much of my work “O.R.”? Am I the only person who has had problems with Gwen Gale? Not if you read her contribs, and certainly not if you Google her name. |
more text, again copy pasted from that closed thread |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
1. Gwen Gale has dominated the article “Death of Adolf Hitler” for years. 2. Gwen Gale is not informed about the “Death of Adolf Hitler”. She refuses to acknowledge the work of Sir Ian Kershaw, about who Wiki itself (no books needed) says “He is regarded by many as one of the world's leading experts on Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany and is particularly noted for his monumental biography of Hitler, which has been called "soberly objective." . She continues to use Bezymenski, a 1968 admitted fraud, as a source over numerous other authors. 3. Any time anyone will keep Gwen Gale away from “Death of Adolf Hitler”, serious scholars will fix it and get stars or whatever, Wiki will be accurate, and proud. 4. Any time anyone will keep Gwen Gale away from “Death of Adolf Hitler”, I and all my posts become moot. All I have ever wanted was to get the “popular press” out of what I consider a serious subject. |
Hello, Gwen. Could you please take a look at this? Thanks in advance. Ninguém ( talk) 02:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for my comment. Missed the tag. Buster7 ( talk) 21:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Seriously. Now I'm off to bed. — Gavia immer ( talk) 09:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Gwen. [2]. Malke 2010 ( talk) 10:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Is there a process for appealing an AfD that editors are claiming has allowed a merger of an article that was not the subject of the AfD? Malke 2010 ( talk) 13:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't often cite WP:OWN myself, but it mostly has to do with the behaviour of a single editor trying to shepherd their own edits, keeping an article to themselves. All encyclopedias have flaws, because the sources they're built upon have flaws, even the so-called peer reviewed sources. The en.WP database, one way or another, will likely still be on networks in 100 years, but a lot of what's in it now will be digital dust, buried in the contrib histories, if those even make it through. Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is only a starting point for learning about a topic. Taken as such, it can be very handy. Taken as more than that, one will find mostly woe sooner or later and lots of readers are smarter than lots of editors think.
However, topics on faith and politics not only stir up editor and reader emotions, their sources are mostly muddled, botched, spun and worse. That's what you have to work with, so do what you can within that. Sometimes, you won't be able to do very much. It will most often be a slow, inching slog. You can't speed it up by commenting on other editors or trying to snow them under in what you may hope is a clever blizzard of policy citations. Editing in those topics takes even more heed to consensus and dealing with others in a peaceful way and that's the pith. If you want to spend gobs of your volunteer time in those topics, wonderful, but by now you should know, sometimes consensus is not going to go your way. On the bright side though, if editors learn they can trust you not to stir up a kerfluffle whenever you don't get what you want, over time they may tend to begin trusting you enough to open up their minds. The worthwhile outcomes of this can wind through topic areas by means which you may not foresee and can take years. In this way, lots of Wikipedia's core content grows rather like the Pitch drop experiment. Only you can know if your time is worth dealing with that, or if this website is even worth your time and what you have to give. Gwen Gale ( talk) 10:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen,
Two years ago the article on [alcoholics_anonymous] was vandalised continually for a few months by one person using several IP addresses and various sockpuppet accounts. I wrote to you and you very helpfully blocked the user here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Gwen_Gale&diff=prev&oldid=245551241
And logged his sockpuppets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_MisterAlbert
THe guy is back again and is posting nonsensically and ignoring the consensus of the other editors. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Alcoholics_Anonymous&action=edit§ion=4
His new IP address is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/174.7.111.158 (Its the same location, Vancouver Canada, as the one from two years ago)
And his new sockpuppets are Jayseer and Johnh677: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Jayseer&action=edit&redlink=1 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Johnh677&action=edit&redlink=1
Any help you can give will be appreciated. Thanks
Mr Miles ( talk) 00:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
As you reverted my change on this article, I was hoping you could join the discussion on the talk page about how/if to properly use this source and what information from the editorial to use. Thanks! Yobol ( talk) 18:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Before an edit war begins, I was wondering if I can get an unbiased opinion on Robert Garside. Specifically the Afterward section and the event that never occurred in 2004. Trying to discuss it also on the talk page. CanadianLinuxUser ( talk) 21:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I have had user handles in the past, none are active as the names and passwords are long forgotton. At this time I have one user handle only and I mean only one. John677 is not my user handle, and I am not posting under that user name. I have sent him a message in his talk page to use sourced references , sign his name , take his issues up with the talk page.
There are some issues concerning wiki veriabilty on sources and references on a page I have recently edited and I would like to discuss these with you on another day. Regards Jayseer ( talk) 03:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The Alcoholics Anonymous page under AA Data has sourced Loran Archer using a refererence source that links to a yahoo talk page , I have addressed Archer on talk not being a reliable source for he has been called for misinterpreting research data , see talk page of alcoholics anonymous , and holds pointed biases. Regards Jayseer ( talk) 22:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
In regards to Jayseer ( talk · contribs), you should check out Jayseerer ( talk · contribs), which I'm quite certain, due to the fact they use the same username, and edit the same topic area, are the same person.— Dæ dαlus + Contribs 06:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
That is not a sock puppet , it is a expired user name simply because I lost the password, the only solution I had was to log on as close to the original name as I could... you can see it has not been active.
I have only being using this name. Jayseer /jayseerer lost password. Jayseer ( talk) 11:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Sarah_Palin#Environment The entire section on predator control, that was 95% percent me, I was mastering the art of posting images, in fact they are all there, the only change is someone has swapped out the polar, overall that section of the article the section has been preserved as I left it, I went back in the edit archives and found that was A Mister Albert posting.
That is why John 677 is not me, he is a newbie because he edits like one.
Jayseer ( talk) 14:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
REFRENCE MATERIAL on the effectiveness of alcoholics anonymous page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectiveness_of_Alcoholics_Anonymous#cite_note-THREEAMIGOS-13 NUMBER 14.
there it is , unpublished, three unnamed authors, questionalbe math, and pov
Jayseer ( talk) 17:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Gwen in the alcoholics anonymous talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alcoholics_Anonymous two editors were in a dispute , one sought a third opinion, the opinion has been added and the overall is clear the source material does not mean the burden of proof has gave recommendation for the material to be removed.
As I am very new to this I do not know which next level is appropriate or how to go about it. it. I suggested the notification board and another editor said a third source. First I am not sure how to hyper link to to the talk page a notification that I have done so, nor how to correctly invite a response for the from the opinion I am seeking to respond to the board. You also gave me two wiki pages for capturing and grabbing information and unfortunately I did not copy and paste it and our discussion has been removed. Could you please repost those links. Jayseer ( talk) 00:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
[3] I just want it clarified for the future - so when one admin has placed an unblock request on hold and discussion is ongoing, it is perfectly acceptable for another admin to review and decide the unblock request? Gimmetoo ( talk) 11:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen,
You removed my edits to the plot section of Zabriskie Point (Film) and I would like you to reconsider. My edits were all factual (to the plot) and anyone familiar with the film will see their merit. Is this the proper way to address my request for reconsideration? Would you like me to send you a more lengthy annotated defense of my changes? You say (I believe)"too much original research by good faith IP." After repeated viewings and study of the film I believe all the edits can be authenticated by dialog transcripts and descriptions of individual camera shots.
Thanks in advance, CEHenderson CEHenderson ( talk) 04:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
…
Gwen, could you consider reversing your closure of the thread "Requesting review of my removal of talk page access of TFM?" This is because i do not feel that people who may have a reasonable objection to my action have had the opportunity to comment. Specifically, Gimmetoo (who is discussing a related issue with you above) has some reasonable objections to my action. I would like for Gimmetoo (and anyone else who has objections) to have the opportunity to air his objections in a public forum, so that they may be evaluated against my own position on the matter. Short-circuiting the discussion isn't really helpful. People have objections, and these need to be addressed. If, after a day or so, either the discussion has reached a consensus one way or another OR it has clearly degraded to silliness, then it can be closed. But its only had a few hours, and many people have not had the chance to weigh in with their opinions about my conduct here. -- Jayron 32 19:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
This user has been adding large swaths of unsourced and largely unnecessary information to radio and television pages. One page, WBIR-TV, had some 20 edits, all could be considered OR and unsourced. I left a small note on the user's talkpage, but an admin (like yourself) could probably put it in better terms. Mind taking a look? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I am assuming that at some point the user had a talk page, but I can't find any meaningful history. I wanted to move it to the right place. I'm happy to talk about this via email if you prefer, obviously he's been in touch via OTRS and it's clear to me that he is unable to let this drop while there is still a link to his RWI. It's extremely easy to rebut his accusations against Wikipedia with the single exception that we seem to be intent on perpetuating the consequences of his ill-judged use of his real name. Guy ( Help!) 19:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, can you forward me those portions of the emails which TFM asked to be made public? I think that should be OK and I do not intend to publish them myself, I'd just like to make my own evaluation. I think you already have my address somewhere. Regards! Franamax ( talk) 19:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. For some reason, water fluoridation really upsets people; there is an ongoing campaign against Wikipedia's articles in this area. User:Zxoxm created an article that should probably be nixed: William Marcus, the article advances User:Zxoxm's agenda of antifluoridation. I assume that articles created by sockpuppets are removed automatically, but am not sure.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 23:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've nominated Wikipedia:KERFLUFFLE, a redirect that you created, for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 13#Wikipedia:KERFLUFFLE. Hey Mid ( contribs) 11:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I must have fat fingered right over your comment.... -- Nuujinn ( talk) 11:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Gwen, one of the reasons I dislike the various alert pages is that they're something of a trap. The moment an editor goes to report bad behavior, they face the risk of being ambushed by editors who are uninvolved in the matter at hand but see this as an opportunity to pile on the reporting editor and turn the tables on them. Essentially, it's the old "blame the victim" trick, and this is not the first time it's happened to me. It was bad enough when Collect started tossing out unrelated (and, to be frank, meritless) complaints, but now his partner in crime, THF, is joining in the fray, and has created a sub-heading with my name on it. This has become ridiculous.
At this point, what I would normally do is move our conversation about "sophistry" up above the fold, and then hat the entire reversal attack. However, you have asked me not to refactor other editor's words. Therefore, I'm asking you if you would be willing to move your own words (and mine) up after the fold. I will then politely ignore Collect and THF until the main issue is resolved. How does that sound? Dylan Flaherty 12:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
So, let me understand this. An editor calls me a liar, clearly violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and most likely WP:NPA.
And your suggestion is... that I shrug it off and go away? How could this course of action possibly do anything other than motivate abusers to continue? Dylan Flaherty 13:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
If I know you, then you're thinking, "That Dylan, he just doesn't tilt at enough windmills. Maybe he should try something bigger, like a meta-windmill."
If my guess was right, then you'll be thrilled about my new proposal. Note that, while inspired by recent events, it is independent.
I would appreciate any feedback you would like to give regarding User:Dylan Flaherty/NOBOOMERANG, particularly in terms of next steps. Dylan Flaherty 18:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
User talk:Gwen Gale/barn has recently been created by the banned Whitman/McCoy editor, no doubt because your main talk page is semiprotected. Just letting you know, since you may not have been aware of it and I don't care to mark it for deletion without calling it to your attention. I don't have any further comment on the contents of the page. — Gavia immer ( talk) 05:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I note the banning, and don't understand it.
Dylan has been one of the better behaved, better mannered posters there. Others post tangentially and irrelevantly most of the time, and have been very rude. I abandoned the page for a while because of others' poor behaviour.
Your action appears one sided to me given what I have seen.
Hence, a private "why Dylan?", and why no criticism of others?
HiLo48 ( talk) 11:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
methinks his behavour is a bit uncivil... Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 11:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Gwen, have you ever done customer service or tech support work? Dylan Flaherty 12:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that kind of thing can spin out rather unhappily. Sort of like going on about something, for which you don't have consensus, without end on the talk page of a high traffic, controversial, political WP:BLP about which almost every source to be had is dodgy spin (and that one is one of the highest traffic and most controversial ones on the site). Never mind the article is under sanctions. Consensus doesn't mean "right" or "wrong" by the way and Wikipedia is not about truth. Gwen Gale ( talk) 12:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Given what you've posted here, the topic ban still seems fitting. Until you shift your outlook on how to deal with other editors and maybe learn more about how things are done here, you're not going to get very far. Gwen Gale ( talk) 15:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I genuinely hope you and Dylan are able to come to an agreement that allows him to return to collaborating productively at Talk:Sarah Palin. Unfortunately, there is an important misrecollection above, though, that I think is harmful if it goes uncorrected: "On the talk page, jaes twice used the heavy-handed approach of shrink-wrapping sections to prevent conversation from continuing, and also tried to divide and conquer the subject, to no avail."
Given the extent to which the conversations there were going absolutely nowhere fast, I had asked Dylan, on more than one occasion, to proceed with an RfC (which he initially began working on here). Because the original conversation had stalled, and because Dylan had proposed going forward with dispute resolution, I archived the original discussion. Dylan thanked me for archiving the original discussion and had, in fact, tried to do so himself several hours earlier (with an edit summary of "ending completely counterproductive debate").
I originally archived the second discussion on 13 December, but Dylan reverted that two minutes later as premature. Although I disagreed with his revert, I waited a further three days, until 16 December; given that there still had not been a single further post in that section, I again archived it so that the conversation could continue in one organized thread. In both cases, I believed it was fair to say the conversation had reached its natural conclusion, and Dylan actually got "the last word" there (and in the original section, now that I look back at it).
I don't know why he now believes my archiving of those two sections to have been "heavy-handed," but my intention was not to "shrink-wrap" the debate, and I honestly believed he recognized that at the time. I supported Dylan's proposals to move forward with an RfC, and I believe I was, in fact, (one of, if not) the first editor to recommend to him that particular path. I had considered moving forward with an RfC myself prior to the wp:an/i situation, but I am completely willing to wait and allow Dylan to frame that as he sees fit. (For what it's worth, I'd also support lifting any restrictions, whenever you believe it to be appropriate, to specifically allow him to do so.) jæs (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Ding. You have mail... -- Jayron 32 06:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For your willingness to deal with disputes regarding Sarah Palin, a topic which probably has one of the highest admin burnout rates on Wikipedia. Kelly hi! 04:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC) |
You blocked this user not long ago. However, I believe you should consider indef for this edit; I believe the user is a clear troll who doesn't plan on contributing to WP once their block is up.— Dæ dαlus + Contribs 07:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I saw this thread at ANI and then looked into the situation with TFM, who I remember interacting with in a pleasant way a couple of years ago. I wonder what happened to cause that spectacular meltdown? Kelly hi! 19:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm about 1 button click away from blocking Barts1a for a long time. You're familiar with him, I believe; would this be too drastic? -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 14:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Only since he brought them up himself, I'd say the restrictions are worth a try. Gwen Gale ( talk) 09:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Ping!— Dæ dαlus + Contribs 08:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Q. I saw on prBeacon's Talk page you said, "Calling other editors trolls is a wanton personal attack. You should take this as a warning, you can't leave this content in your userspace. Please clean it up now. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)" Well both prBeacon and Dylan Flaherty have just called me a troll on Dylan Flaherty's Talk page in a section called Redemption. Take a look at the circumstance--about as untroll-worthy as you can get. The question is, what, if anything should I or anyone else do about this? I am asking because I saw your comment I quoted above. Thanks for the advice, if any, as I know we are all busy. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling ( talk) 05:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
You were gloating over the end of ANI which resulted in Dylan's topic ban. I advised him to take it all with a grain of salt. You latched upon this to deliver some pointy nonsense, much like your contributions to the ANI involving him. It's trolling. That's not the same as calling you a troll. Rather than looking for ways to excuse your actions, you might examine the actions themselves. - PrBeacon (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I think you're already familiar with the topic ban you imposed. Dylan Flaherty 10:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
As far as I remember, or am aware, you are uninvolved in this sock fiasco, so would you mind closing this ban thread and issuing the ban on the two?— Dæ dαlus + Contribs 00:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
And unrelated to anything above, you have a new email.— Dæ dαlus + Contribs 08:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
But I had to let them know that i'm not having it. I provided a source for Castle Walls and the girl reverted it without even looking. So yes it made me a liitle angry, but I didn't mean no harm. I hope I won't be blocked for speaking my peace. Georgia Peachez ( talk) 22:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
117 links and counting ... - Alison ❤ 12:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Ping!— Dæ dαlus + Contribs 11:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Pong! Gwen Gale ( talk) 12:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
How do you reconcile this with your unblocking comment: "consensus seems to be that many admins are indeed sycophants", which wasn't even accurate, as I hadn't been discussing administrators. What we both know is that admins like yourself prowl around looking for any excuse to block editors that they take a dislike to. Malleus Fatuorum 15:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm looking for an explanation, not a whitewash. To refresh your memory the discussion is here. You said explicitly that "calling someone a sycophantic wannabee is a personal attack", when I had called nobody anything. I am though now calling you a liar once again. Malleus Fatuorum 16:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
What I've done in this thread, is to metaphorically compare your behaviour on my talk page with online rape, the outcome being runed somewhat sloppily with notions of the spawn of Satan, which is why your incivility, along with incivility altogether, is not on here. Now Merry Christmas to you and begone. Gwen Gale ( talk) 18:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Although I can well appreciate that Malleus is not the easiest person to get along with, I feel that comparisons to rape (even with the proviso that it is metaphorical) are excessive and unwarranted. Worse, they can be used as the basis for further arguments.
I'm not familiar with the basis for your original disagreement with Malleus (and I strongly decline to become further involved), but a brief look seems to indicate that it has become a meta-argument: people arguing about their behavior in previous arguments. Such meta-disputes can drag on well beyond the point of diminishing returns and become a festering stagnant pool of emotional cancer. Both of you are adults, and should be able to withdraw from this. DS ( talk) 18:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't do civility blocks. I don't even watch WQA. Gwen Gale ( talk) 21:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
In other words, can you please answer the question I asked you above? What can we do to resolve this issue? - GTBacchus( talk) 03:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
As per the AN/I discussion, I have come here to tell you that you cannot reverse the topic ban which you imposed on Dylan Flaherty (with overwhelming community support). Horologium (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Could you please do something about this obvious attempt to instigate an argument? Looks like clear WP:BATTLE mentality. There was nothing constructive about that post. Post in a thread that has nothing to do with you, an attack on an editor you were previously banned from commenting on. I think this ban(specifically mbz1 commenting on me) needs to be upped to indef, or they need to be blocked for a long while, as they are clearly trying to start something.— Dæ dαlus + Contribs 06:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Just curious; in this edit you used the reasoning that "could mislead other editors". Was the misleading part directed towards the categories, or the message itself? It appears they copy/pasted the notice instead of subst, so incorrect categories were showing ... so I can understand removing those ... but in what way is applying a block notice to oneself, when you are indeed blocked, misleading? Or was it an incorrect reason shown (looks like the generic disruptive editing notice, so fits most situations). Granted, theie comments were indicating a likelihood of continued disruption ... so I think a forced wikibreak was required at this point if there's ever to be hope of the user making a convincing appeal for an unblock, so I don't disagree with the revoking of talk page access. But I was curious on the reasons for that one action ... what was it that was viewed as potentially misleading? --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 21:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Merry Xmas Gwen. I see you're dealing with our sockpuppet. The latest manifestions forgot to sign as User:206.225.95.144, and the page is now locked to everyone. How about a semi-protection? At least note that it was that IP that made the request. It's nice to have the documentation visible. -- Brangifer ( talk) 20:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, you were the administrator who blocked USER:DonnyD97 for a legal threat that editor made. There is a new user account that started on Dec. 25, seven days after DonnyD97 was blocked, who is making the exact same kind of edits that DonnyD97 did leading me to suspect sockpuppetry. Specifically converting people or actor infoboxes to comedian infoboxes or expanding the information in the comedian infobox for that person. The editor makes some good contributions and I sincerely don't believe is here to hurt WP, but does not seem willing to engage with other editors when there is a disagreement or even just when that editor makes easily correctable mistakes. And then of course is the outstanding legal threat ( here) and some rather uncivil language used when blocked. I'm really unfamiliar with the entire process dealing with socks so I thought I would mention it to you before trying to figure out what, if anything, else I should do. Thanks. SQGibbon ( talk) 07:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() | Please refrain from making incomprehensible edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Darwinbish. Your edits appear to constitute numbers and have not been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the Jimmy Wales article. Thank you. |
LessHeard vanU ( talk) 12:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
When you're back, I'd ask you to take another look at Mbz1 and respond to their recent comments, and clarify whether what they've said so far is enough to merit (possibly conditional) unblocking; or what else you want to hear to justify unblocking. Any other recommendations or thoughts (eg I notice Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mbz1 is a redlink; any opinion on whether a formal community ban should be proposed now or in certain circumstances, etc) would also be helpful. Rd232 talk 02:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict, my comments earlier for Broccoli) Mbz1 has been blocked now ten times in the last year for legitimate reasons of edit warring, disruptive editing, violations of topic and interaction bans, and harassment. Why on Earth would you want to summarily discount the opinions of editors she has directly affected with her behavior? I agree with Gwen above, a ban was never going to be an option. Gwen's proposal is a good step, though. Dayewalker ( talk) 19:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that one, had too many windows open with blocking the sock. I think I mashed it for longer than you did, so go right ahead and shorten it if you like. Courcelles 22:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Think it should be sorted with this, though someone may want to double check. u n☯ mi 09:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
— Dæ dαlus + Contribs 11:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
![]()
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
This is one of the strangest barnstar I have ever given. I tried to understand where you were coming from in your actions towards me. I believe I did, and it helped me to feel better about what happened. Although I said many times that I do not consider the block to be valid (I still do not), you lifted it without requesting my apology, which would have been impossible for me to issue without lying, and I never lie. It was kind and nice of you to lift the block, and you deserve this barnstar. I'd better give it to you now before I am blocked again :( Anyway... Mbz1 ( talk) 20:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For your fast and resolute actions to stop sockpuppetry and vandalism, especially the anti-fluoridation socks of User:Freedom5000 / User:Wikidrips. Long semi-protection of the relevant articles is a very effective tool. Thanks! -- Brangifer ( talk) 00:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 22:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Gwen,
Could you please explain me one more time how to move my entire talk page's history to the entire new archive? The thing is that while I do see "move" button at the article pages, I do not see it at my own talk page. Thanks.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 23:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I went back to sleep. Come to think of it, though I can't recall ever having seen someone archive their talk page with history moves, you can do that, since the move shows up in your talk page log. Hence, most experienced editors will still be able to find the history. It does look like the history move you've made may not match up with how you've archived the text. To make things easier, you should put a link to your archives on your talk page, but you don't need to do that. Taken altogether, handling it this way is unlikely to have the outcome you want, since some editors may think you're only trying to hide your talk page history and so might only draw more heed (not less) to it. Gwen Gale ( talk) 11:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
There was a clear consensus against unblocking Binksternet on AN/I. Several admins had clearly stated that no other admin should unilaterally unblock him, without a clear consensus. So I'd like to know why you unilaterally unblocked him without a consensus? Wikipedia is a transparent project, I'd like to know if you were contacted or lobbied off-wiki by another admin to take this action? Last time he was blocked, he had also promised to stick to 1RR, so your rational to unblock him makes no sense. Where is the consequence for his disruption of the project and harassment of me after the previous promise? Kurdo777 ( talk) 07:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Three answers on my talk page: User talk:Amatulic#two questions. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 06:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey
Bzuk (
contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the
WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Hi Gwen Gale, I've been having an arguement with another editor about including information about someone's statement which is not 100% accurate. It has been discussed by expert geneticists (which the person based his statement on) that identifying a person's ancestry is not 100% accurate still to date and the other editor continues to include the information when I had the proper sources stating the flaws in the person's statements about admixture. If they want to keep in the article fine but the way it is written it makes his statement appear golden and 100% accurate. So I've gotten tired of it because on other editors are getting involved and I included even more sources clearly indicating that DNA tests assessing admixture are not 100% accurate and even miss/can't identify recent ancestors. I'm trying my best not to get into an edit war but I'm so tired of seeing it in the article. It's in African American in the admixture section and he also removed everything pertaining to relations between Native Americans and African Americans but left information between European Americans and African Americans...so what am I so supposed to think about that? It's a part of African American history the editor continues to try to exclude and their was no discussion about the removal of the information. It was just removed and no other editor stepped in to check him. Mcelite ( talk) 19:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Please see File:Zabriskie point antonioni 01.png, File:Zabriskie point antonioni 03.png, File:Zabriskie point antonioni 04.png, and File:Zabriskie point antonioni 05.png. These showed up on the nightly database report of orphaned non-free media today. Courcelles 03:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, since you were the one who blocked
USER:DonnyD97 I thought I'd mention that it looks like they are editing again using another IP (this same editor has been blocked several times for sockpuppeting). The new IP is
USER:173.72.84.209. Never mind, taken care of.
SQGibbon (
talk)
01:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Gwen,
Seeing as you're an administrator, and I'm being harassed by an experienced user on Wikipedia, I just wanted to draw the Wikipedia staff's attention to this user, and his offensive behaviour.
I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, and I've never been harassed so much in my life, as I have when I tried to expand some of the articles, by adding a few links and resources, here.
You can see all my correspondence with Kintetsubuffalo here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kenoiyan
And the edits (with comments) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Raven&action=history
Maybe I made a mistake in trying to add that resource link to the article, but it isn't right that these people should abuse me for it. I thank you for your help dearly... I don't know who else I can turn to...
Nevermind what happened to me, but I don't want another new Wikipedia user to have to go through the same unfair treatment, that I've suffered.
Incidentally, is there a form for personal abuse on Wikipedia? There must be some place where victims of verbal harassment and abuse can seek protection..?
Thank you, sincerely, Kenoiyan ( talk) 18:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
...very much! SergeWoodzing ( talk) 19:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Gwen Gale. Why do you keep reverting to this? As I stated in my edit summary, "Fingering can be penetrative, and oral sex can as well, when either fingers or the tongue enter the vagina. The Non-penetrative sex article makes this clear." So does the Sexual intercourse and Fingering (sexual act) articles. Furthermore, the source attributed to Shere Hite mentions digital penetration (aka fingering) as part of lesbian lovemaking. And to say that lesbian sex positions are limited? That's simply not true. The variety of sex positions in the Sex positions article can be acted out by lesbians as well. There are even reliable sources stating that lesbians can act out the same positions as heterosexual couples. I simply do not understand why you kept reverting to that equally unsourced and limited definition of lesbian sex. Either way, I have further tweaked the IP's additions, and will likely add sources to boot. Flyer22 ( talk) 19:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello again. You may recall that you asked me to remove a list of 'FNC campers' from my usertalkpage awhile back, because it could appear to be an attack page. Now I'm on the other end of that two-way door so I'd like to get some advice on how to proceed, if possible. I recently asked an involved admin about it but was told to just ignore it. Here's the list
Anti-LAEC anon editors" which lumps me in with anon-IP editors, and here's where I've asked him to remove it my name
[10]. Apparently the list was created as a reply to an investigating admin, but no proof of my involvement was provided then or since.
LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (
talk ·
contribs) has refused to remove my name, rejected my request to provide diffs, and repeated old arguments until his talkpage editing privileges were revoked again. Respectfully, -
PrBeacon
(talk)
10:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC) revised
User:Access Denied was blocked by User:MuZemike for one week for socking why would you make that block indefinite? Were there more socks? Inka 888 20:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I think you are person who unbanned Mbz1 and I would like to ask you re-instate that ban. I was given something that looked like evidence of wrongdoing by Mbz1. Planning to take it to ANI, I asked Mbz1 how we could get her unbanned and if she heard about this. What followed is one of the strangest and most persistent personal assaults I think I've seen with multiple violations of WP:Legal. Also a violation of the terms of her unblock as she's now taken this to multiple admins. This has gotten way out of hand. Sol ( talk) 02:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I see you unblocked Mbz1 on the condition she stay away from the noticeboards, but I couldn't quite make out the last part of "has agreed to stay away from ANI, AN, SPI, AE for 6 mos, tkng bvir wrs to only 1 editor". Is it she can't take one specific editor to AN or anyone to ANs. I ask because she just took me to AN/EW, although my three edits were consecutive minus some grammar fixing by another editor. Passionless -Talk 08:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Mbz1 has given you a breath of Spring to promote
WikiLove and a new beginning
-- Mbz1 ( talk) 03:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Gwen,
As I told you earlier today I was going to consider my extremely unwarranted bans to be lifted, and to act accordingly, but then you gave me the cookies, and I decided it would not be the right thing to do to upset you with my actions.
So, I am asking you to lift those bans. May I please ask you to understand me? I do not care about contributing to any of those boards. I could live happily without them, but my bans have been used to hound and to harass me more than once already. Only yesterday a sock of a banned user and user:passionless harassed me with those bans as you know. And you still remember now community-banned User:Sol Goldstone, don't you?
I hope you like the image of the Spring. I took it myself, and I decided to give you something different not cookies, but I'd like to stress out please that I gave you wikilove not in order to ask you to lift my bans, but rather to do something nice for you as you did for me by giving me cookies:-)
Regards.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 03:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/173.74.196.27 I can barely keep up with my reverts of this IP. Please help. Asher196 ( talk) 22:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
Not everybody here understands my sense of humor because I came from an absolutely different culture. You did, and this deserves a barnstar! Mbz1 ( talk) 22:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC) |
Hello Gwen,
Could you please help fix the problem on the Bash page. User Msnicki ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Msnicki ) is simply biased against using the official Bash homepage as a valid source of information to write a good definition for Bash.
Can you help solve this?
Thank you. -- Grandscribe ( talk) 20:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, you said you are lifting my bans as of March 27. As user:passionless indicated here she's planning to take me to AE by the end of the week. If this is to happen before March 27, am I allowed to respond at AE filed against me? I'd like to stress out please, that it is not me who's going to file an AE on Passionless, it is Passionless who is going to file an AE on me. I personally will do my best to stay away from all those boards like the bans are still on, if for nothing else then at least because it is much safer to stay away :-) Regards.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 01:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Gwen; I just thought I ought to point out that the rollback tool is only for use on edits which were clear vandalism and not for reverts such as these: [11] [12] and arguably [13]
Hope you don't mind me sticking my nose in :) ╟─ Treasury Tag► Woolsack─╢ 09:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Haven't seen you around in a while; thought I'd just drop by and say hello. :) I really need a whole lot more text to balance the orchid, but I'm not sure I'm going to be able to come up with enough. That's really a very striking flower, isn't it? I absolutely love its color variations. Flowers can be such shameless hussies, just flaunting it out there for any passing pollinators. Go them, I say. If they're going to be that spectacular, they should share. (No offense meant to plain flowers. They can share, too, if they want to. And non-flowering plants as well.)
Anyway, because I've had a nosy look at your contribs, I see you're not gone altogether, just staying close to home at the moment. I hope that whatever you're up to, life is treating you well. Happy April! Enjoy spring, if you live in that hemisphere. :D -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Are you an uninvolved admin in Mbz1's case? If you have a previous dispute with the editor or in the topic area you should place your comment in the section above it. Cptnono ( talk) 23:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
edit conflict: If it is reasonable to assume that your previous interaction has clouded her judgement then I would agree that she is "involved". Sounds like she is done dealing in an administrative fashion then I am surprised she commented in that section. Of course, her opinion are the least of your worries at this point. I think it is unfortunate since I do respect your editing and fully understand how frustrating Passionless is. Best wishes. For GG, you should at least consider moving your comment. Cptnono ( talk) 01:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Gwen,
There's no reason to topic ban me. I could be put on a zero tolerance civility alert, but I did not do anything that could have required a topic ban in this area. I hope you will reconsider your comment. Regards.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 23:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mbz1. You made a deal with Mbz1 in December, 2010 at the time that you lifted her indef block. Mbz1 has questioned the restrictions that you imposed. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 19:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ╟─ Treasury Tag► Woolsack─╢ 16:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Please could you put a notice at the top of your talk page advising IP editors to contact another admin, who will pass their message on to you, if they have any issue they need to raise with you? As it is, they are given no indication as to how they can communicate with you. Thank you. DuncanHill ( talk) 01:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Gwen, please see this talk thread at Talk:Hard disk drive#IEC prefixes and WP:MOSNUM. I suspect User:RaptorHunter is Thunderbird2, who knows better. So too does User:Tom94022, who is seizing upon this flair up in direct contravention of a widely discussed consensus on MOSNUM. For a first stop, can we get a CU on RaptorHunter? Greg L ( talk) 03:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I just want to let you know that I am familiar with the edit behaviour and POV of a certain user you indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple account. He just returned to the article Mexico, reverting and re-introducing large portion of texts that were removed due to article weight. He also wants to introduce a particular POV regarding indigenous languages and economics of Mexico. You should check his edit pattern and I'd go for a check user.
I don't have the time now to produce a diff list but check Rahgld edits to article Mexico. He was also always clustering articles with pictures, and his new sock is also doing the same. It is veeeery easy to notice it is him... yet again. Alex Covarrubias ( Talk? ) 13:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hello Gwen. I can stand the heat, which is why I'm in the kitchen. Please remove your block of this person (a block of which I hadn't been aware when I restored and responded). Really, this is pretty mild stuff; he's only identified me as a different species of primate, not a body organ or evacuated product thereof. -- Hoary ( talk) 05:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
i have always made useful contributions only. u may go through rajesh khanna history page each and every line has been put by me only... my personal attack has been only after her act of tarnishing my image by writing everywhere unexplained and unconstructive edits by me when the fact was i spoke truth in the articles with references as a support. . my attack was only a reaction to all her atrocities on me. just because she is a administrator , that doesnt mean what she is says is right. be true to yourself. eg...genaic had reverted in rajesh khanna main article ...to """"He appeared in many romances and social melodramas, costarring with Sharmila Tagore, Asha Parekh, Mumtaz, Hema Malini and Tina Munim. In the 1980s, he costarred with Shabana Azmi, Smita Patil and Poonam Dhillon""""" and quicklight have explained how there is no copyright problem or violation of wiki policy ... see the discussion between good editors like Moonriddengirl,.Quicklight and bonadea ...it says there is no problem in writing the sentence as .."He formed popular onscreen pairs with with Sharmila Tagore, Asha Parekh, Mumtaz in the seventies and with Hema Malini, Tina Munim, Shabana Azmi, Smita Patil and Poonam Dhillon in eighties in many romances and social melodramas and films from a range of different genres""
but genaic has not bothered to revert it.
plus see this """u still have not responded to her completely baised act in artciles like -- bewafai,insaaf main karoonga and sitapur ki geeta. i showed you how in-spite of being well referenced she removed the informations i posted. like http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sitapur_Ki_Geeta&diff=cur&oldid=398008379""""
do not worry, iam not afraid to speak truth . Shrik88music ( talk) 14:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
"Three Saturn V vehicles launched on Earth orbital flights. Two of the three ( Apollo 4 and 6) were unmanned tests of the command and service modules, and the third was a manned flight, Apollo 9, testing the lunar module. Nine Saturn Vs launched manned Apollo missions to the Moon, including Apollo 11. It was also used for the unmanned launch of Skylab. "
Check the source. It mentions nothing about freshwater lenses (or Ghyben-Herzberg lens) or anything that might be specifically defined as such. It simply states: "no natural fresh water resources" under the Environment section. Other sections omit mention of water resources. Perhaps a word used in common English could be used to replace lens, if you feel that it should remain. -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 18:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
User:Nsaum75/Lens_(hydrology) - Would you be interested in helping me expand it before I move it to the mainspace? -- nsaum75 ¡שיחת! 18:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I have now opend the ANI (though I am wonderinjg if an RFC is more apporpriate3). Slatersteven ( talk)
i have always made useful contributions only. u may go through rajesh khanna history page each and every line has been put by me only... my personal attack has been only after her act of tarnishing my image by writing everywhere unexplained and unconstructive edits by me when the fact was i spoke truth in the articles with references as a support. . my attack was only a reaction to all her atrocities on me. just because she is a administrator , that doesnt mean what she is says is right. be true to yourself. eg...genaic had reverted in rajesh khanna main article ...to """"He appeared in many romances and social melodramas, costarring with Sharmila Tagore, Asha Parekh, Mumtaz, Hema Malini and Tina Munim. In the 1980s, he costarred with Shabana Azmi, Smita Patil and Poonam Dhillon""""" and quicklight have explained how there is no copyright problem or violation of wiki policy ... see the discussion between good editors like Moonriddengirl,.Quicklight and bonadea ...it says there is no problem in writing the sentence as .."He formed popular onscreen pairs with with Sharmila Tagore, Asha Parekh, Mumtaz in the seventies and with Hema Malini, Tina Munim, Shabana Azmi, Smita Patil and Poonam Dhillon in eighties in many romances and social melodramas and films from a range of different genres""
but genaic has not bothered to revert it.
plus see this """u still have not responded to her completely baised act in artciles like -- bewafai,insaaf main karoonga and sitapur ki geeta. i showed you how in-spite of being well referenced she removed the informations i posted. like http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sitapur_Ki_Geeta&diff=cur&oldid=398008379""""
do not worry, iam not afraid to speak truth . Shrik88music ( talk) 19:24, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
That 88.104 vandal's range and the photo posted are consistent with the M.O. of the banned user "Light current". Earlier this year, a broad-ranging and fairly lengthy range block was imposed. It might be getting to be time to do that again. Please consult user "Ten of all trades" for more details, as he's kept closer watch on LC than I have. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
GG, I'run into an IP user who is adding copyvio material to the Cabinet Secretary (India) Article. The source is http://cabsec.nic.in/rti_powerduties.php . Copyvio parts include this "gem":
Not all af the article is a copyvio (yet!), so I'm unclear how to tag it. Can you advise? Thanks. - BilCat ( talk) 12:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
{{subst:copyvio | url=insert URL here}}
tag straight off. See
WP:Copyvio for more.
Gwen Gale (
talk)
12:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Many thanks! - BilCat ( talk) 12:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Jonathan? LessHeard vanU ( talk) 14:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I have just posted a section by this name about you at ANI. Wm5200 ( talk) 17:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
mostly copy pasted thread from an article talk page |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Gwen, I'm asking you this question mainly because of your frequent participation at this article and its talk page. Would you consider material presented from this source acceptable and helpful if used in a proper context? Thanks. Dr. Dan ( talk) 01:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I lost you, but I’m confused myself. It appears as though the person with the least information available is most influential on the article. The U.S. is big on free press, and it works. My very low budget suburb is in a system which serves 225,000 people with 4 MILLION titles (numbers approximate, thanks Carol). That’s on the next shuttle van. Most of the rest of the assets of a state with 12 million people are a couple of days away by mail. The specialty stuff on AE from Radcliffe took maybe a week. And I am an amateur. Dan, you are over three million people higher in the food chain, you must be “world class”. Kierzek has clearly read and analyzed everything, reviewed most of it, and as far as I can tell, every word he says is accurate and informed. Kershaw, Joachimsthaler, Thomas, Trevor-Roper, Beevor, Shirer, Ryan, Toland, Eberle/Uhl, Lehmann/Carroll, O’Donnell, Victor, Petrova/Watson. (Vinogradov hit a snag, reordered). These are books which I have had in my possession and read parts of since Aug 2010. I can understand if others do not have access to the same resources, but I think that should be addressed. If someone does not have access to two footnotes which are critical in a discussion, that also should be addressed. I think maybe that “using information that they have read and can understand” means that if you only read and have access to the “Sun”, that is all you should use as a source. But I think you should get them right. And I don’t think that you should dispute or ignore works beyond the "Sun", they are outside your understanding. I know that this is P.O.V., and that I am personally involved. But I can not help but believe that this article has problems with it’s process. Wm5200 ( talk) 18:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC) |
lots of text copy pasted from this closed thread |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
On 01:27, 5 August 2010 I posted a section on "Talk: Death of Adolf Hitler" titled “Random Questions” which started “I am not a scholar, I read Wiki but would not think of editing it. But I was disappointed in this article, and many points in the discussion, so I am asking some questions. Perhaps someone else will read and address them.” The section went on with several rethoritical questions, and ended with “As to sources, the last books I have read are The Murder of Adolph Hitler by Hugh Thomas (sort of shaky) and The Last Days of Hitler by Anton Joachimsthaler (English translation, I buy much of this).” Gwen Gale was apparently assigned me as an administrator, because at 09:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC) she replied with: ”As the article lead says,...This said, this talk page isn't a forum for talking about personal views or questions on a topic, it's meant for talking about sources and how to echo them in the text. I say this because the article seems to already cover, with thorough citations, most if not all of what you've brought up...dodgy. Gwen Gale (talk)” By this reply it appears that Gwen Gale is NOT FAMILIAR with the work of Joachimsthaler, who I have just referenced, and thinks that I am asking a personal question, not a rhetorical one. At that time I apologized, tried to explain myself, and restate my questions. At 17:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC) I posted” If I had read Kershaw's Nemesis Chapter 17 note 156 and Epilogue note 1 I wouldn't have wasted your time. You can't get much clearer than that. Should be required reading. Perhaps someone else should read them, and possibly edit the article. Thank you for your time.99.41.251.5 (talk)” At 16:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC) I posted “I would like to direct people to the work of Ian Kershaw Hitler, 1939-1945: Nemesis ISBN 0393322521. Chapter 17 and the epilogue relate to this article. Please pay attention to his notes and sources. Be warned, his book Hitler: a Biography is a kind of digest which does not include these resources....The source Joachimsthaler is basically an English translation of a German's analysis of 1950's post-Soviet interviews of bunker survivors. The original transcripts must be available somewhere. There are many other bunker interviews, some with questionable intent, and not all agree. Wm5200 (talk)“ Since those posts I have posted a huge amount on the talk page, virtually all of which Gwen Gale has disputed. Much of the material I have posted I have later deleted, often because I felt that the endless conflict between Gwen Gale and myself is counterproductive to the article. Anyone who is Wiki can probably bring back any of those posts. Was I sometimes rude and argumentative? Absolutely. Was I making legitimate points which related to the article? I thought so. Did I receive effective support and encouragement by my administrator? I think not, but you judge. My main point was that Joachimsthaler had reviewed the information, and had made a solid case for positions which Kershaw backed. I repeatedly begged anyone, especially Gwen Gale, to read Joachimsthaler and Kershaw, specifically, two footnotes, I even told the pages of the footnotes. Gwen Gale clearly had not read either source. 18:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC) I posted, under the heading “Question for Gwen Gale” , the following: ”I lost you, but I’m confused myself. It appears as though the person with the least information available is most influential on the article. The U.S. is big on free press, and it works. My very low budget suburb is in a system which serves 225,000 people with 4 MILLION titles (numbers approximate, thanks Carol). That’s on the next shuttle van. Most of the rest of the assets of a state with 12 million people are a couple of days away by mail. The specialty stuff on AE from Radcliffe took maybe a week. And I am an amateur. Dan, you are over three million people higher in the food chain, you must be “world class”. Kierzek has clearly read and analyzed everything, reviewed most of it, and as far as I can tell, every word he says is accurate and informed. Kershaw, Joachimsthaler, Thomas, Trevor-Roper, Beevor, Shirer, Ryan, Toland, Eberle/Uhl, Lehmann/Carroll, O’Donnell, Victor, Petrova/Watson. (Vinogradov hit a snag, reordered). These are books which I have had in my possession and read parts of since Aug 2010. I can understand if others do not have access to the same resources, but I think that should be addressed. If someone does not have access to two footnotes which are critical in a discussion, that also should be addressed...I know that this is P.O.V., and that I am personally involved. But I can not help but believe that this article has problems with it’s process.Wm5200 (talk)'" On 22:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Gwen Gale posted “For starters, the Russian autopsy bore overwhelming evidence he not only shot himself, but bit down on a cyanide capsule. Gwen Gale (talk)”. By this post it is clear to anyone familiar with either Joachimsthaler or Kershaw that Gwen Gale is still not familiar with either work. At 02:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I posted, under the title “Gwen Gale’s sources”, the following: “I think the rest of us in this discussion would benefit from knowing what Gwen Gale is using as sources, which sources that are on the article and the rest of us are familiar with is she NOT familiar with, which sources she has access to, and when she last familiarized herself with the ones which she is currently using. It appears that we are talking about a person who is "informationally challenged" relative the others in this discussion. Perhaps some arrangement might be made so she has a level of knowledge that could make her be an asset. I have both Kershaw Nemisis and Fest Hitler which I will donate, if it will bring her up to speed so this article is not impeded any more.(User:Wm5200)” At 04:59, 12 November 2010 Kierzek deleted my post “per Wiki talk page guidelines”. Okay, how do I address this continued refusal to read the source material? I have offered to mail Kershaw half way around the world so that Gwen Gale can read two crummy footnotes. But my offer is not only not taken up, but is apparently not in good faith, and even “snarky”. What can I do to get my administrator to read the source material? I would like to bring up two Wiki terms which I do not understand. It appears that Gwen Gale and I have a different “P.O.V.” about the usage of these terms. Assume Good Faith. I first thought that Gwen Gale would be a good administrator, after what I have been through, would YOU assume she is acting in good faith? Original Research. I have never been to Berlin, read any original documents, or talked to any eyewitness. The ONLY information I have about the subject is what I have read in published works. How is it that Gwen Gale finds so much of my work “O.R.”? Am I the only person who has had problems with Gwen Gale? Not if you read her contribs, and certainly not if you Google her name. |
more text, again copy pasted from that closed thread |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
1. Gwen Gale has dominated the article “Death of Adolf Hitler” for years. 2. Gwen Gale is not informed about the “Death of Adolf Hitler”. She refuses to acknowledge the work of Sir Ian Kershaw, about who Wiki itself (no books needed) says “He is regarded by many as one of the world's leading experts on Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany and is particularly noted for his monumental biography of Hitler, which has been called "soberly objective." . She continues to use Bezymenski, a 1968 admitted fraud, as a source over numerous other authors. 3. Any time anyone will keep Gwen Gale away from “Death of Adolf Hitler”, serious scholars will fix it and get stars or whatever, Wiki will be accurate, and proud. 4. Any time anyone will keep Gwen Gale away from “Death of Adolf Hitler”, I and all my posts become moot. All I have ever wanted was to get the “popular press” out of what I consider a serious subject. |
Hello, Gwen. Could you please take a look at this? Thanks in advance. Ninguém ( talk) 02:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for my comment. Missed the tag. Buster7 ( talk) 21:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Seriously. Now I'm off to bed. — Gavia immer ( talk) 09:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Gwen. [2]. Malke 2010 ( talk) 10:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Is there a process for appealing an AfD that editors are claiming has allowed a merger of an article that was not the subject of the AfD? Malke 2010 ( talk) 13:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't often cite WP:OWN myself, but it mostly has to do with the behaviour of a single editor trying to shepherd their own edits, keeping an article to themselves. All encyclopedias have flaws, because the sources they're built upon have flaws, even the so-called peer reviewed sources. The en.WP database, one way or another, will likely still be on networks in 100 years, but a lot of what's in it now will be digital dust, buried in the contrib histories, if those even make it through. Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is only a starting point for learning about a topic. Taken as such, it can be very handy. Taken as more than that, one will find mostly woe sooner or later and lots of readers are smarter than lots of editors think.
However, topics on faith and politics not only stir up editor and reader emotions, their sources are mostly muddled, botched, spun and worse. That's what you have to work with, so do what you can within that. Sometimes, you won't be able to do very much. It will most often be a slow, inching slog. You can't speed it up by commenting on other editors or trying to snow them under in what you may hope is a clever blizzard of policy citations. Editing in those topics takes even more heed to consensus and dealing with others in a peaceful way and that's the pith. If you want to spend gobs of your volunteer time in those topics, wonderful, but by now you should know, sometimes consensus is not going to go your way. On the bright side though, if editors learn they can trust you not to stir up a kerfluffle whenever you don't get what you want, over time they may tend to begin trusting you enough to open up their minds. The worthwhile outcomes of this can wind through topic areas by means which you may not foresee and can take years. In this way, lots of Wikipedia's core content grows rather like the Pitch drop experiment. Only you can know if your time is worth dealing with that, or if this website is even worth your time and what you have to give. Gwen Gale ( talk) 10:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen,
Two years ago the article on [alcoholics_anonymous] was vandalised continually for a few months by one person using several IP addresses and various sockpuppet accounts. I wrote to you and you very helpfully blocked the user here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Gwen_Gale&diff=prev&oldid=245551241
And logged his sockpuppets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_MisterAlbert
THe guy is back again and is posting nonsensically and ignoring the consensus of the other editors. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Alcoholics_Anonymous&action=edit§ion=4
His new IP address is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/174.7.111.158 (Its the same location, Vancouver Canada, as the one from two years ago)
And his new sockpuppets are Jayseer and Johnh677: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Jayseer&action=edit&redlink=1 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Johnh677&action=edit&redlink=1
Any help you can give will be appreciated. Thanks
Mr Miles ( talk) 00:07, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
As you reverted my change on this article, I was hoping you could join the discussion on the talk page about how/if to properly use this source and what information from the editorial to use. Thanks! Yobol ( talk) 18:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Before an edit war begins, I was wondering if I can get an unbiased opinion on Robert Garside. Specifically the Afterward section and the event that never occurred in 2004. Trying to discuss it also on the talk page. CanadianLinuxUser ( talk) 21:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
I have had user handles in the past, none are active as the names and passwords are long forgotton. At this time I have one user handle only and I mean only one. John677 is not my user handle, and I am not posting under that user name. I have sent him a message in his talk page to use sourced references , sign his name , take his issues up with the talk page.
There are some issues concerning wiki veriabilty on sources and references on a page I have recently edited and I would like to discuss these with you on another day. Regards Jayseer ( talk) 03:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
The Alcoholics Anonymous page under AA Data has sourced Loran Archer using a refererence source that links to a yahoo talk page , I have addressed Archer on talk not being a reliable source for he has been called for misinterpreting research data , see talk page of alcoholics anonymous , and holds pointed biases. Regards Jayseer ( talk) 22:46, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
In regards to Jayseer ( talk · contribs), you should check out Jayseerer ( talk · contribs), which I'm quite certain, due to the fact they use the same username, and edit the same topic area, are the same person.— Dæ dαlus + Contribs 06:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
That is not a sock puppet , it is a expired user name simply because I lost the password, the only solution I had was to log on as close to the original name as I could... you can see it has not been active.
I have only being using this name. Jayseer /jayseerer lost password. Jayseer ( talk) 11:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Sarah_Palin#Environment The entire section on predator control, that was 95% percent me, I was mastering the art of posting images, in fact they are all there, the only change is someone has swapped out the polar, overall that section of the article the section has been preserved as I left it, I went back in the edit archives and found that was A Mister Albert posting.
That is why John 677 is not me, he is a newbie because he edits like one.
Jayseer ( talk) 14:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
REFRENCE MATERIAL on the effectiveness of alcoholics anonymous page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectiveness_of_Alcoholics_Anonymous#cite_note-THREEAMIGOS-13 NUMBER 14.
there it is , unpublished, three unnamed authors, questionalbe math, and pov
Jayseer ( talk) 17:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Gwen in the alcoholics anonymous talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alcoholics_Anonymous two editors were in a dispute , one sought a third opinion, the opinion has been added and the overall is clear the source material does not mean the burden of proof has gave recommendation for the material to be removed.
As I am very new to this I do not know which next level is appropriate or how to go about it. it. I suggested the notification board and another editor said a third source. First I am not sure how to hyper link to to the talk page a notification that I have done so, nor how to correctly invite a response for the from the opinion I am seeking to respond to the board. You also gave me two wiki pages for capturing and grabbing information and unfortunately I did not copy and paste it and our discussion has been removed. Could you please repost those links. Jayseer ( talk) 00:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
[3] I just want it clarified for the future - so when one admin has placed an unblock request on hold and discussion is ongoing, it is perfectly acceptable for another admin to review and decide the unblock request? Gimmetoo ( talk) 11:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen,
You removed my edits to the plot section of Zabriskie Point (Film) and I would like you to reconsider. My edits were all factual (to the plot) and anyone familiar with the film will see their merit. Is this the proper way to address my request for reconsideration? Would you like me to send you a more lengthy annotated defense of my changes? You say (I believe)"too much original research by good faith IP." After repeated viewings and study of the film I believe all the edits can be authenticated by dialog transcripts and descriptions of individual camera shots.
Thanks in advance, CEHenderson CEHenderson ( talk) 04:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
…
Gwen, could you consider reversing your closure of the thread "Requesting review of my removal of talk page access of TFM?" This is because i do not feel that people who may have a reasonable objection to my action have had the opportunity to comment. Specifically, Gimmetoo (who is discussing a related issue with you above) has some reasonable objections to my action. I would like for Gimmetoo (and anyone else who has objections) to have the opportunity to air his objections in a public forum, so that they may be evaluated against my own position on the matter. Short-circuiting the discussion isn't really helpful. People have objections, and these need to be addressed. If, after a day or so, either the discussion has reached a consensus one way or another OR it has clearly degraded to silliness, then it can be closed. But its only had a few hours, and many people have not had the chance to weigh in with their opinions about my conduct here. -- Jayron 32 19:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
This user has been adding large swaths of unsourced and largely unnecessary information to radio and television pages. One page, WBIR-TV, had some 20 edits, all could be considered OR and unsourced. I left a small note on the user's talkpage, but an admin (like yourself) could probably put it in better terms. Mind taking a look? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
I am assuming that at some point the user had a talk page, but I can't find any meaningful history. I wanted to move it to the right place. I'm happy to talk about this via email if you prefer, obviously he's been in touch via OTRS and it's clear to me that he is unable to let this drop while there is still a link to his RWI. It's extremely easy to rebut his accusations against Wikipedia with the single exception that we seem to be intent on perpetuating the consequences of his ill-judged use of his real name. Guy ( Help!) 19:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, can you forward me those portions of the emails which TFM asked to be made public? I think that should be OK and I do not intend to publish them myself, I'd just like to make my own evaluation. I think you already have my address somewhere. Regards! Franamax ( talk) 19:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. For some reason, water fluoridation really upsets people; there is an ongoing campaign against Wikipedia's articles in this area. User:Zxoxm created an article that should probably be nixed: William Marcus, the article advances User:Zxoxm's agenda of antifluoridation. I assume that articles created by sockpuppets are removed automatically, but am not sure.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 23:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I've nominated Wikipedia:KERFLUFFLE, a redirect that you created, for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 13#Wikipedia:KERFLUFFLE. Hey Mid ( contribs) 11:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I must have fat fingered right over your comment.... -- Nuujinn ( talk) 11:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Gwen, one of the reasons I dislike the various alert pages is that they're something of a trap. The moment an editor goes to report bad behavior, they face the risk of being ambushed by editors who are uninvolved in the matter at hand but see this as an opportunity to pile on the reporting editor and turn the tables on them. Essentially, it's the old "blame the victim" trick, and this is not the first time it's happened to me. It was bad enough when Collect started tossing out unrelated (and, to be frank, meritless) complaints, but now his partner in crime, THF, is joining in the fray, and has created a sub-heading with my name on it. This has become ridiculous.
At this point, what I would normally do is move our conversation about "sophistry" up above the fold, and then hat the entire reversal attack. However, you have asked me not to refactor other editor's words. Therefore, I'm asking you if you would be willing to move your own words (and mine) up after the fold. I will then politely ignore Collect and THF until the main issue is resolved. How does that sound? Dylan Flaherty 12:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
So, let me understand this. An editor calls me a liar, clearly violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and most likely WP:NPA.
And your suggestion is... that I shrug it off and go away? How could this course of action possibly do anything other than motivate abusers to continue? Dylan Flaherty 13:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
If I know you, then you're thinking, "That Dylan, he just doesn't tilt at enough windmills. Maybe he should try something bigger, like a meta-windmill."
If my guess was right, then you'll be thrilled about my new proposal. Note that, while inspired by recent events, it is independent.
I would appreciate any feedback you would like to give regarding User:Dylan Flaherty/NOBOOMERANG, particularly in terms of next steps. Dylan Flaherty 18:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
User talk:Gwen Gale/barn has recently been created by the banned Whitman/McCoy editor, no doubt because your main talk page is semiprotected. Just letting you know, since you may not have been aware of it and I don't care to mark it for deletion without calling it to your attention. I don't have any further comment on the contents of the page. — Gavia immer ( talk) 05:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
I note the banning, and don't understand it.
Dylan has been one of the better behaved, better mannered posters there. Others post tangentially and irrelevantly most of the time, and have been very rude. I abandoned the page for a while because of others' poor behaviour.
Your action appears one sided to me given what I have seen.
Hence, a private "why Dylan?", and why no criticism of others?
HiLo48 ( talk) 11:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
methinks his behavour is a bit uncivil... Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me | Merry Christmas to all! 11:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Gwen, have you ever done customer service or tech support work? Dylan Flaherty 12:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, that kind of thing can spin out rather unhappily. Sort of like going on about something, for which you don't have consensus, without end on the talk page of a high traffic, controversial, political WP:BLP about which almost every source to be had is dodgy spin (and that one is one of the highest traffic and most controversial ones on the site). Never mind the article is under sanctions. Consensus doesn't mean "right" or "wrong" by the way and Wikipedia is not about truth. Gwen Gale ( talk) 12:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Given what you've posted here, the topic ban still seems fitting. Until you shift your outlook on how to deal with other editors and maybe learn more about how things are done here, you're not going to get very far. Gwen Gale ( talk) 15:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I genuinely hope you and Dylan are able to come to an agreement that allows him to return to collaborating productively at Talk:Sarah Palin. Unfortunately, there is an important misrecollection above, though, that I think is harmful if it goes uncorrected: "On the talk page, jaes twice used the heavy-handed approach of shrink-wrapping sections to prevent conversation from continuing, and also tried to divide and conquer the subject, to no avail."
Given the extent to which the conversations there were going absolutely nowhere fast, I had asked Dylan, on more than one occasion, to proceed with an RfC (which he initially began working on here). Because the original conversation had stalled, and because Dylan had proposed going forward with dispute resolution, I archived the original discussion. Dylan thanked me for archiving the original discussion and had, in fact, tried to do so himself several hours earlier (with an edit summary of "ending completely counterproductive debate").
I originally archived the second discussion on 13 December, but Dylan reverted that two minutes later as premature. Although I disagreed with his revert, I waited a further three days, until 16 December; given that there still had not been a single further post in that section, I again archived it so that the conversation could continue in one organized thread. In both cases, I believed it was fair to say the conversation had reached its natural conclusion, and Dylan actually got "the last word" there (and in the original section, now that I look back at it).
I don't know why he now believes my archiving of those two sections to have been "heavy-handed," but my intention was not to "shrink-wrap" the debate, and I honestly believed he recognized that at the time. I supported Dylan's proposals to move forward with an RfC, and I believe I was, in fact, (one of, if not) the first editor to recommend to him that particular path. I had considered moving forward with an RfC myself prior to the wp:an/i situation, but I am completely willing to wait and allow Dylan to frame that as he sees fit. (For what it's worth, I'd also support lifting any restrictions, whenever you believe it to be appropriate, to specifically allow him to do so.) jæs (talk) 17:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Ding. You have mail... -- Jayron 32 06:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Admin's Barnstar | |
For your willingness to deal with disputes regarding Sarah Palin, a topic which probably has one of the highest admin burnout rates on Wikipedia. Kelly hi! 04:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC) |
You blocked this user not long ago. However, I believe you should consider indef for this edit; I believe the user is a clear troll who doesn't plan on contributing to WP once their block is up.— Dæ dαlus + Contribs 07:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Wow, I saw this thread at ANI and then looked into the situation with TFM, who I remember interacting with in a pleasant way a couple of years ago. I wonder what happened to cause that spectacular meltdown? Kelly hi! 19:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm about 1 button click away from blocking Barts1a for a long time. You're familiar with him, I believe; would this be too drastic? -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 14:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Only since he brought them up himself, I'd say the restrictions are worth a try. Gwen Gale ( talk) 09:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Ping!— Dæ dαlus + Contribs 08:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Q. I saw on prBeacon's Talk page you said, "Calling other editors trolls is a wanton personal attack. You should take this as a warning, you can't leave this content in your userspace. Please clean it up now. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)" Well both prBeacon and Dylan Flaherty have just called me a troll on Dylan Flaherty's Talk page in a section called Redemption. Take a look at the circumstance--about as untroll-worthy as you can get. The question is, what, if anything should I or anyone else do about this? I am asking because I saw your comment I quoted above. Thanks for the advice, if any, as I know we are all busy. -- LegitimateAndEvenCompelling ( talk) 05:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
You were gloating over the end of ANI which resulted in Dylan's topic ban. I advised him to take it all with a grain of salt. You latched upon this to deliver some pointy nonsense, much like your contributions to the ANI involving him. It's trolling. That's not the same as calling you a troll. Rather than looking for ways to excuse your actions, you might examine the actions themselves. - PrBeacon (talk) 07:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I think you're already familiar with the topic ban you imposed. Dylan Flaherty 10:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
As far as I remember, or am aware, you are uninvolved in this sock fiasco, so would you mind closing this ban thread and issuing the ban on the two?— Dæ dαlus + Contribs 00:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
And unrelated to anything above, you have a new email.— Dæ dαlus + Contribs 08:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
But I had to let them know that i'm not having it. I provided a source for Castle Walls and the girl reverted it without even looking. So yes it made me a liitle angry, but I didn't mean no harm. I hope I won't be blocked for speaking my peace. Georgia Peachez ( talk) 22:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
117 links and counting ... - Alison ❤ 12:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Ping!— Dæ dαlus + Contribs 11:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Pong! Gwen Gale ( talk) 12:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
How do you reconcile this with your unblocking comment: "consensus seems to be that many admins are indeed sycophants", which wasn't even accurate, as I hadn't been discussing administrators. What we both know is that admins like yourself prowl around looking for any excuse to block editors that they take a dislike to. Malleus Fatuorum 15:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm looking for an explanation, not a whitewash. To refresh your memory the discussion is here. You said explicitly that "calling someone a sycophantic wannabee is a personal attack", when I had called nobody anything. I am though now calling you a liar once again. Malleus Fatuorum 16:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
What I've done in this thread, is to metaphorically compare your behaviour on my talk page with online rape, the outcome being runed somewhat sloppily with notions of the spawn of Satan, which is why your incivility, along with incivility altogether, is not on here. Now Merry Christmas to you and begone. Gwen Gale ( talk) 18:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Although I can well appreciate that Malleus is not the easiest person to get along with, I feel that comparisons to rape (even with the proviso that it is metaphorical) are excessive and unwarranted. Worse, they can be used as the basis for further arguments.
I'm not familiar with the basis for your original disagreement with Malleus (and I strongly decline to become further involved), but a brief look seems to indicate that it has become a meta-argument: people arguing about their behavior in previous arguments. Such meta-disputes can drag on well beyond the point of diminishing returns and become a festering stagnant pool of emotional cancer. Both of you are adults, and should be able to withdraw from this. DS ( talk) 18:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't do civility blocks. I don't even watch WQA. Gwen Gale ( talk) 21:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
In other words, can you please answer the question I asked you above? What can we do to resolve this issue? - GTBacchus( talk) 03:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
As per the AN/I discussion, I have come here to tell you that you cannot reverse the topic ban which you imposed on Dylan Flaherty (with overwhelming community support). Horologium (talk) 02:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Could you please do something about this obvious attempt to instigate an argument? Looks like clear WP:BATTLE mentality. There was nothing constructive about that post. Post in a thread that has nothing to do with you, an attack on an editor you were previously banned from commenting on. I think this ban(specifically mbz1 commenting on me) needs to be upped to indef, or they need to be blocked for a long while, as they are clearly trying to start something.— Dæ dαlus + Contribs 06:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Just curious; in this edit you used the reasoning that "could mislead other editors". Was the misleading part directed towards the categories, or the message itself? It appears they copy/pasted the notice instead of subst, so incorrect categories were showing ... so I can understand removing those ... but in what way is applying a block notice to oneself, when you are indeed blocked, misleading? Or was it an incorrect reason shown (looks like the generic disruptive editing notice, so fits most situations). Granted, theie comments were indicating a likelihood of continued disruption ... so I think a forced wikibreak was required at this point if there's ever to be hope of the user making a convincing appeal for an unblock, so I don't disagree with the revoking of talk page access. But I was curious on the reasons for that one action ... what was it that was viewed as potentially misleading? --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 21:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Merry Xmas Gwen. I see you're dealing with our sockpuppet. The latest manifestions forgot to sign as User:206.225.95.144, and the page is now locked to everyone. How about a semi-protection? At least note that it was that IP that made the request. It's nice to have the documentation visible. -- Brangifer ( talk) 20:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello, you were the administrator who blocked USER:DonnyD97 for a legal threat that editor made. There is a new user account that started on Dec. 25, seven days after DonnyD97 was blocked, who is making the exact same kind of edits that DonnyD97 did leading me to suspect sockpuppetry. Specifically converting people or actor infoboxes to comedian infoboxes or expanding the information in the comedian infobox for that person. The editor makes some good contributions and I sincerely don't believe is here to hurt WP, but does not seem willing to engage with other editors when there is a disagreement or even just when that editor makes easily correctable mistakes. And then of course is the outstanding legal threat ( here) and some rather uncivil language used when blocked. I'm really unfamiliar with the entire process dealing with socks so I thought I would mention it to you before trying to figure out what, if anything, else I should do. Thanks. SQGibbon ( talk) 07:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() | Please refrain from making incomprehensible edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Darwinbish. Your edits appear to constitute numbers and have not been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the Jimmy Wales article. Thank you. |
LessHeard vanU ( talk) 12:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
When you're back, I'd ask you to take another look at Mbz1 and respond to their recent comments, and clarify whether what they've said so far is enough to merit (possibly conditional) unblocking; or what else you want to hear to justify unblocking. Any other recommendations or thoughts (eg I notice Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mbz1 is a redlink; any opinion on whether a formal community ban should be proposed now or in certain circumstances, etc) would also be helpful. Rd232 talk 02:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict, my comments earlier for Broccoli) Mbz1 has been blocked now ten times in the last year for legitimate reasons of edit warring, disruptive editing, violations of topic and interaction bans, and harassment. Why on Earth would you want to summarily discount the opinions of editors she has directly affected with her behavior? I agree with Gwen above, a ban was never going to be an option. Gwen's proposal is a good step, though. Dayewalker ( talk) 19:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that one, had too many windows open with blocking the sock. I think I mashed it for longer than you did, so go right ahead and shorten it if you like. Courcelles 22:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Think it should be sorted with this, though someone may want to double check. u n☯ mi 09:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
— Dæ dαlus + Contribs 11:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
![]()
|
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
This is one of the strangest barnstar I have ever given. I tried to understand where you were coming from in your actions towards me. I believe I did, and it helped me to feel better about what happened. Although I said many times that I do not consider the block to be valid (I still do not), you lifted it without requesting my apology, which would have been impossible for me to issue without lying, and I never lie. It was kind and nice of you to lift the block, and you deserve this barnstar. I'd better give it to you now before I am blocked again :( Anyway... Mbz1 ( talk) 20:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC) |
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
For your fast and resolute actions to stop sockpuppetry and vandalism, especially the anti-fluoridation socks of User:Freedom5000 / User:Wikidrips. Long semi-protection of the relevant articles is a very effective tool. Thanks! -- Brangifer ( talk) 00:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC) |
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The Resident Anthropologist ( talk) 22:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Gwen,
Could you please explain me one more time how to move my entire talk page's history to the entire new archive? The thing is that while I do see "move" button at the article pages, I do not see it at my own talk page. Thanks.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 23:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I went back to sleep. Come to think of it, though I can't recall ever having seen someone archive their talk page with history moves, you can do that, since the move shows up in your talk page log. Hence, most experienced editors will still be able to find the history. It does look like the history move you've made may not match up with how you've archived the text. To make things easier, you should put a link to your archives on your talk page, but you don't need to do that. Taken altogether, handling it this way is unlikely to have the outcome you want, since some editors may think you're only trying to hide your talk page history and so might only draw more heed (not less) to it. Gwen Gale ( talk) 11:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
There was a clear consensus against unblocking Binksternet on AN/I. Several admins had clearly stated that no other admin should unilaterally unblock him, without a clear consensus. So I'd like to know why you unilaterally unblocked him without a consensus? Wikipedia is a transparent project, I'd like to know if you were contacted or lobbied off-wiki by another admin to take this action? Last time he was blocked, he had also promised to stick to 1RR, so your rational to unblock him makes no sense. Where is the consequence for his disruption of the project and harassment of me after the previous promise? Kurdo777 ( talk) 07:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Three answers on my talk page: User talk:Amatulic#two questions. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 06:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey
Bzuk (
contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the
WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
Hi Gwen Gale, I've been having an arguement with another editor about including information about someone's statement which is not 100% accurate. It has been discussed by expert geneticists (which the person based his statement on) that identifying a person's ancestry is not 100% accurate still to date and the other editor continues to include the information when I had the proper sources stating the flaws in the person's statements about admixture. If they want to keep in the article fine but the way it is written it makes his statement appear golden and 100% accurate. So I've gotten tired of it because on other editors are getting involved and I included even more sources clearly indicating that DNA tests assessing admixture are not 100% accurate and even miss/can't identify recent ancestors. I'm trying my best not to get into an edit war but I'm so tired of seeing it in the article. It's in African American in the admixture section and he also removed everything pertaining to relations between Native Americans and African Americans but left information between European Americans and African Americans...so what am I so supposed to think about that? It's a part of African American history the editor continues to try to exclude and their was no discussion about the removal of the information. It was just removed and no other editor stepped in to check him. Mcelite ( talk) 19:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Please see File:Zabriskie point antonioni 01.png, File:Zabriskie point antonioni 03.png, File:Zabriskie point antonioni 04.png, and File:Zabriskie point antonioni 05.png. These showed up on the nightly database report of orphaned non-free media today. Courcelles 03:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, since you were the one who blocked
USER:DonnyD97 I thought I'd mention that it looks like they are editing again using another IP (this same editor has been blocked several times for sockpuppeting). The new IP is
USER:173.72.84.209. Never mind, taken care of.
SQGibbon (
talk)
01:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Gwen,
Seeing as you're an administrator, and I'm being harassed by an experienced user on Wikipedia, I just wanted to draw the Wikipedia staff's attention to this user, and his offensive behaviour.
I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, and I've never been harassed so much in my life, as I have when I tried to expand some of the articles, by adding a few links and resources, here.
You can see all my correspondence with Kintetsubuffalo here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kenoiyan
And the edits (with comments) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Raven&action=history
Maybe I made a mistake in trying to add that resource link to the article, but it isn't right that these people should abuse me for it. I thank you for your help dearly... I don't know who else I can turn to...
Nevermind what happened to me, but I don't want another new Wikipedia user to have to go through the same unfair treatment, that I've suffered.
Incidentally, is there a form for personal abuse on Wikipedia? There must be some place where victims of verbal harassment and abuse can seek protection..?
Thank you, sincerely, Kenoiyan ( talk) 18:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
...very much! SergeWoodzing ( talk) 19:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello, Gwen Gale. Why do you keep reverting to this? As I stated in my edit summary, "Fingering can be penetrative, and oral sex can as well, when either fingers or the tongue enter the vagina. The Non-penetrative sex article makes this clear." So does the Sexual intercourse and Fingering (sexual act) articles. Furthermore, the source attributed to Shere Hite mentions digital penetration (aka fingering) as part of lesbian lovemaking. And to say that lesbian sex positions are limited? That's simply not true. The variety of sex positions in the Sex positions article can be acted out by lesbians as well. There are even reliable sources stating that lesbians can act out the same positions as heterosexual couples. I simply do not understand why you kept reverting to that equally unsourced and limited definition of lesbian sex. Either way, I have further tweaked the IP's additions, and will likely add sources to boot. Flyer22 ( talk) 19:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello again. You may recall that you asked me to remove a list of 'FNC campers' from my usertalkpage awhile back, because it could appear to be an attack page. Now I'm on the other end of that two-way door so I'd like to get some advice on how to proceed, if possible. I recently asked an involved admin about it but was told to just ignore it. Here's the list
Anti-LAEC anon editors" which lumps me in with anon-IP editors, and here's where I've asked him to remove it my name
[10]. Apparently the list was created as a reply to an investigating admin, but no proof of my involvement was provided then or since.
LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (
talk ·
contribs) has refused to remove my name, rejected my request to provide diffs, and repeated old arguments until his talkpage editing privileges were revoked again. Respectfully, -
PrBeacon
(talk)
10:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC) revised
User:Access Denied was blocked by User:MuZemike for one week for socking why would you make that block indefinite? Were there more socks? Inka 888 20:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I think you are person who unbanned Mbz1 and I would like to ask you re-instate that ban. I was given something that looked like evidence of wrongdoing by Mbz1. Planning to take it to ANI, I asked Mbz1 how we could get her unbanned and if she heard about this. What followed is one of the strangest and most persistent personal assaults I think I've seen with multiple violations of WP:Legal. Also a violation of the terms of her unblock as she's now taken this to multiple admins. This has gotten way out of hand. Sol ( talk) 02:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I see you unblocked Mbz1 on the condition she stay away from the noticeboards, but I couldn't quite make out the last part of "has agreed to stay away from ANI, AN, SPI, AE for 6 mos, tkng bvir wrs to only 1 editor". Is it she can't take one specific editor to AN or anyone to ANs. I ask because she just took me to AN/EW, although my three edits were consecutive minus some grammar fixing by another editor. Passionless -Talk 08:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Mbz1 has given you a breath of Spring to promote
WikiLove and a new beginning
-- Mbz1 ( talk) 03:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Gwen,
As I told you earlier today I was going to consider my extremely unwarranted bans to be lifted, and to act accordingly, but then you gave me the cookies, and I decided it would not be the right thing to do to upset you with my actions.
So, I am asking you to lift those bans. May I please ask you to understand me? I do not care about contributing to any of those boards. I could live happily without them, but my bans have been used to hound and to harass me more than once already. Only yesterday a sock of a banned user and user:passionless harassed me with those bans as you know. And you still remember now community-banned User:Sol Goldstone, don't you?
I hope you like the image of the Spring. I took it myself, and I decided to give you something different not cookies, but I'd like to stress out please that I gave you wikilove not in order to ask you to lift my bans, but rather to do something nice for you as you did for me by giving me cookies:-)
Regards.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 03:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/173.74.196.27 I can barely keep up with my reverts of this IP. Please help. Asher196 ( talk) 22:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
Not everybody here understands my sense of humor because I came from an absolutely different culture. You did, and this deserves a barnstar! Mbz1 ( talk) 22:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC) |
Hello Gwen,
Could you please help fix the problem on the Bash page. User Msnicki ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Msnicki ) is simply biased against using the official Bash homepage as a valid source of information to write a good definition for Bash.
Can you help solve this?
Thank you. -- Grandscribe ( talk) 20:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Gwen, you said you are lifting my bans as of March 27. As user:passionless indicated here she's planning to take me to AE by the end of the week. If this is to happen before March 27, am I allowed to respond at AE filed against me? I'd like to stress out please, that it is not me who's going to file an AE on Passionless, it is Passionless who is going to file an AE on me. I personally will do my best to stay away from all those boards like the bans are still on, if for nothing else then at least because it is much safer to stay away :-) Regards.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 01:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Gwen; I just thought I ought to point out that the rollback tool is only for use on edits which were clear vandalism and not for reverts such as these: [11] [12] and arguably [13]
Hope you don't mind me sticking my nose in :) ╟─ Treasury Tag► Woolsack─╢ 09:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Haven't seen you around in a while; thought I'd just drop by and say hello. :) I really need a whole lot more text to balance the orchid, but I'm not sure I'm going to be able to come up with enough. That's really a very striking flower, isn't it? I absolutely love its color variations. Flowers can be such shameless hussies, just flaunting it out there for any passing pollinators. Go them, I say. If they're going to be that spectacular, they should share. (No offense meant to plain flowers. They can share, too, if they want to. And non-flowering plants as well.)
Anyway, because I've had a nosy look at your contribs, I see you're not gone altogether, just staying close to home at the moment. I hope that whatever you're up to, life is treating you well. Happy April! Enjoy spring, if you live in that hemisphere. :D -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Are you an uninvolved admin in Mbz1's case? If you have a previous dispute with the editor or in the topic area you should place your comment in the section above it. Cptnono ( talk) 23:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
edit conflict: If it is reasonable to assume that your previous interaction has clouded her judgement then I would agree that she is "involved". Sounds like she is done dealing in an administrative fashion then I am surprised she commented in that section. Of course, her opinion are the least of your worries at this point. I think it is unfortunate since I do respect your editing and fully understand how frustrating Passionless is. Best wishes. For GG, you should at least consider moving your comment. Cptnono ( talk) 01:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Gwen,
There's no reason to topic ban me. I could be put on a zero tolerance civility alert, but I did not do anything that could have required a topic ban in this area. I hope you will reconsider your comment. Regards.-- Mbz1 ( talk) 23:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mbz1. You made a deal with Mbz1 in December, 2010 at the time that you lifted her indef block. Mbz1 has questioned the restrictions that you imposed. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 19:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ╟─ Treasury Tag► Woolsack─╢ 16:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Please could you put a notice at the top of your talk page advising IP editors to contact another admin, who will pass their message on to you, if they have any issue they need to raise with you? As it is, they are given no indication as to how they can communicate with you. Thank you. DuncanHill ( talk) 01:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Gwen, please see this talk thread at Talk:Hard disk drive#IEC prefixes and WP:MOSNUM. I suspect User:RaptorHunter is Thunderbird2, who knows better. So too does User:Tom94022, who is seizing upon this flair up in direct contravention of a widely discussed consensus on MOSNUM. For a first stop, can we get a CU on RaptorHunter? Greg L ( talk) 03:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I just want to let you know that I am familiar with the edit behaviour and POV of a certain user you indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple account. He just returned to the article Mexico, reverting and re-introducing large portion of texts that were removed due to article weight. He also wants to introduce a particular POV regarding indigenous languages and economics of Mexico. You should check his edit pattern and I'd go for a check user.
I don't have the time now to produce a diff list but check Rahgld edits to article Mexico. He was also always clustering articles with pictures, and his new sock is also doing the same. It is veeeery easy to notice it is him... yet again. Alex Covarrubias ( Talk? ) 13:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)